Show HN: BornAtXCO2 – What CO2 PPM were you born at, how much has it increased (opens in new tab)

(born-at-x-co2.agiliq.com)

9 pointsshabda4y ago11 comments

11 comments

320, ^31%. Horrifying isn't it. Any other core gas we'd all be long dead, along with most other life.

I don't find it horrifying. Not that long ago, CO2 ppm was twice what it is today. Before that, it was twice that. If we could travel through time, we could drop you in that world and you'd be fine, other than the fact that the world would be an incredibly dense jungle. History shows that we're not particularly close to any dangerously high amount of CO2; we were much closer to a dangerous low amount, since plant respiration fails at around 150 ppm, which would probably mean the extinction of most if not all life on the planet. That's for certain; on the other hand, nobody's able to point to anything particularly bad happening at 400 ppm; the earth has already endured far higher amounts with no problem. Being worried about CO2 is a tenet of a modern religious faith.

unearth3d4y ago

Well humans would suffer with 840ppm: e.g. Seppänen etal. 1999. Association of Ventilation Rates and CO2-Concentrations with Health and other Responses in Commercial and Institutional Buildings. Indoor Air 9: 226-252. Discuss sick building syndrome effects fell sharply <800ppm. Publ. CO2 levels are outside; within buildings even now rates >1000 common, as ambient rises so do within-building rates.

Even at our current levels eCO2 is harming our health: Rising CO2, Climate Change, and Public Health: Exploring the Links to Plant Biology https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2649213/ these are direct CO2 effects on plant physiology leading to negative human outcomes.

eCO2 has dozens of negative effect on natural (and engineered systems including concrete chemistry) systems (inc. us). There are no positives that I've seen yet.

cung4y ago

Just so that this isn’t unclear to anyone, a quick search for historical CO2 shows how absurdly wrong this comment is.

2 more replies

mhh__4y ago

> username

Dang?

tpxl4y ago

@op, entering 1902, Nov, 15 gives NaN% and bricks the site. (Looks like anything below 1958 or so doesn't have data?)

shabdaOP4y ago

Hi, yes thank you. We need to fix the years for which we do not have the data.

lmz4y ago

I wonder if phrasing it as

> You were born at 0.0xyz% CO2, It is now 0.0abc% CO2

instead of using PPM would be less alarming.

engagingdata4y ago

interesting and sobering calculator

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

11 comments

unearth3d4y ago

320, ^31%. Horrifying isn't it. Any other core gas we'd all be long dead, along with most other life.

hntroll11104y ago

unearth3d4y ago

eCO2 has dozens of negative effect on natural (and engineered systems including concrete chemistry) systems (inc. us). There are no positives that I've seen yet.

cung4y ago

Just so that this isn’t unclear to anyone, a quick search for historical CO2 shows how absurdly wrong this comment is.

2 more replies

mhh__4y ago

> username

Dang?

tpxl4y ago

@op, entering 1902, Nov, 15 gives NaN% and bricks the site. (Looks like anything below 1958 or so doesn't have data?)

shabdaOP4y ago

Hi, yes thank you. We need to fix the years for which we do not have the data.

lmz4y ago

I wonder if phrasing it as

> You were born at 0.0xyz% CO2, It is now 0.0abc% CO2

instead of using PPM would be less alarming.

engagingdata4y ago

interesting and sobering calculator

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse